Outcomes of the Tryton-dedicated bifurcation stent for the treatment of true coronary bifurcations

We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the dedicated Tryton side branch (SB) stent for the treatment of true bifurcations involving large SBs.Bifurcation lesions are associated with lower procedural success and a higher risk of adverse cardiac events. Provisional stenting (PS) is currently the default approach for the treatment of bifurcation lesions. The Tryton stent is a dedicated bifurcation stent system for the treatment of true bifurcation lesions.We performed an individual-patient-data pooled post-hoc analysis of the Tryton Pivotal randomized controlled trial and post-approval Confirmatory Study. Only patients with true bifurcations involving a SB ≥ 2.25 mm in diameter were included. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of Tryton compared with PS for target vessel failure (TVF) at 1 year.Of the 411 patients meeting the criteria for enrolment, 287 patients were treated with the Tryton stent and 124 with PS. Procedural success was higher in the Tryton group (95.4 versus 82.3%, P < 0.0001). TVF at 1 year was 8.1% in the Tryton group and 9.7% in the PS group, meeting the pre-specified criteria for non-inferiority established for the randomized controlled trail (pnon-inferiority = 0.02). At 9-month angiographic follow-up, SB diameter stenosis was significantly lower in the Tryton group (29.3 ± 21.9 versus 41.1 ± 17.5, P = 0.0008) and in-segment binary restenosis (diameter stenosis ≥ 50%) was higher in the PS group (19.0 versus 34.2%, respectively, P = 0.052).In patients with true bifurcations involving a large SB, treatment with the Tryton SD Stent was clinically non-inferior to PS and showed favorable angiographic outcomes

Safety and efficacy of coronary sinus narrowing in chronic refractory angina: Insights from the RESOURCE study

Introduction: Refractory angina (RA) is considered the end-stage of coronary artery disease, and often has no interventional treatment options. Coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) is a recent addition to the therapeutic arsenal, but its efficacy has only been evaluated on small populations. The RESOURCE registry provides further insights into this therapy. Methods: The RESOURCE is an observational, retrospective registry that includes 658 patients with RA from 20 centers in Europe, United Kingdom and Israel. Prespecified endpoints were the amelioration of anginal symptoms evaluated with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) score, the rates of procedural success and complications, and MACEs as composite of all-cause mortality, acute coronary syndromes, and stroke. Results: At a median follow-up of 502 days (IQR 225–1091) after CSR implantation, 39.7% of patients improved by ≥2 CCS classes (primary endpoint), and 76% by ≥1 class. Procedural success was achieved in 96.7% of attempts, with 3% of procedures aborted mostly for unsuitable coronary sinus anatomy. Any complication occurred in 5.7% of procedures, but never required bailout surgery nor resulted in intra- or periprocedural death or myocardial infarction. One patient developed periprocedural stroke after inadvertent carotid artery puncture. At the last available follow-up, overall mortality and MACE were 10.4% and 14.6% respectively. At one, three and five years, mortality rate at Kaplan-Meier analysis was 4%, 13.7%, and 23.4% respectively. Conclusions: CSR implantation is safe and reduces angina in patients with refractory angina